Hi Dik, Thanks for taking the time to review this RFC.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:44 PM Dik Takken <d.tak...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks a lot for your work on this RFC, it looks like a nice way to > allow the language to gradually move forward. > > As pointed out by others, the ==, ===, != and !== operators are a bit > problematic. A possible solution could be to leave them out of the RFC. > The reason to do so is that the choice between strict or non-strict > comparison is already possible by choosing the appropriate operator. In > my view, explicitly using == in stead of === is either intentional or a > bug. If it is intentional, the author consciously chose to be > non-strict. The strictness declaration would then only affect operators > for which no strict variant exists or where the operator is implicit > (switch statement). I would argue the following; The explicit use of the strict_operator is intentional, meaning that the author consciously chose to be strict and does not expect some operators to still be non-strict. The issues pointed out, apply to all comparison operators. Ignoring == and != in the RFC creates an inconsistency, while not properly addressing those concerns. > As for changing the behavior of in_array() and friends: I would love the > idea of not having to use the strict argument everywhere anymore. > However, changing behavior of functions that are not in the same file > that has the strictness declaration seems inconsistent. The scope of the > declaration would not be well defined anymore. There may be other means > to fix this annoyance, like introducing a strict variant of in_array(). > :+1: > Regarding the switch statement: While it is not an operator, one could > argue that it is a case of implicit use of an operator. > I agree. Internally it's defined as an operator even. Still, I'll put this up as a secondary vote. > Regards, > Dik Takken >
